Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by Punjab National Bank challenging an award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The Tribunal had set aside a dismissal order due to natural justice violations and directed reinstatement. The High Court found no infirmity as the management failed to adduce evidence after the enquiry was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/29TH PHALGUNA, 1936
W.P.(C).No.6578 of 2010 (V)
[AGAINST THE THE AWARD DATED 09.11.2009 IN I.D.NO.18 OF 2007 OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM]
PETITIONER(S):-
THE CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, GOVINDAPURAM, CALICUT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN.
RESPONDENT(S):-
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.H.B.SHENOY
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE SRI.K.V.GEORGE.
R2 BY ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.N.NAGARESH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
WP(C).No.6578 of 2010 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-
NIL.
Vku/[ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
W.P(C) No.6578 of 2010-V
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Punjab National Bank, a management in a dispute; seeking the allegedly innocuous prayer of adducing evidence before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court [hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”]; on the domestic enquiry being set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly there was a prayer in the written statement for adducing evidence, if the enquiry is found to be vitiated. However, the question cannot be decided merely on the issue of such prayer having been made in the written statement. The conduct of the management-Bank in the proceedings before the Tribunal, as is revealed from the records, is significant in considering the issue.
WP(C).No.6578 of 2010
and so was the fate of the writ petition filed before this Court. However, on the basis of the reservation made by this Court, the
1st respondent approached the appropriate Government for a reference of the dispute raised on the justifiability of denial of employment, which was referred to the Tribunal.
WP(C).No.6578 of 2010
since they had received the notice belatedly and did not have time to make arrangements for their appearance. This was the aspect on which violation of principles of natural justice was found by the Tribunal. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same.
WP(C).No.6578 of 2010
enquiry would not be looked into. The management, obviously, was not represented by a lawyer; but by a Deputy Manager (Law) of the management-Bank.
WP(C).No.6578 of 2010
such circumstance, the management sought for appearance by a counsel [at page 34], which was objected to by the Union [at page 135]. That application was rejected by the Tribunal, since the consent required under Section 36(4) was absent. The prohibition is only with respect to an Advocate appearing for either of the parties and a person trained in law, definitely could represent the workman as an Office bearer of the Union. The Law Officer of the Bank had been representing the management. Hence, there could be no infirmity found in such rejection made by the Tribunal. The same was never called in question by the Bank. It is also to be noticed that the said controversy arose only on account of the Bank having objected to the workman being represented by a lawyer.
and a review was sought for in the said application. On
WP(C).No.6578 of 2010
09.11.2009, the said review was dismissed by a detailed order, found in page 159 of the records of the Tribunal. It is pertinent to notice here that the said order has not been challenged by the management. The order also indicates the proceedings and paragraph 3 is extracted hereunder:-
“The order sheet reveals that the management had taken several adjournments even for production of the missing documents in the enquiry file. Thereafter for examination of the Enquiry Officer several adjournments were availed. A preliminary order was passed on 27.07.2009 finding that the enquiry is not valid. Thereafter the case was posted for further steps to 18.08.2009, 26.08.2009, 06.10.2009 and finally on 03.11.2009. On that day the representative of the management submitted that the management had no further evidence. Hence, the case was posted for hearing to this day. Now the management has come up with a petition to review the order of 03.11.2009. But even today not even a list of witnesses is filed. No witness is also present. The petitioner is not serious in prosecuting the case. Even now they have not decided whether someone should be examined and what are the documents to be relied on. The intention behind the petition is only to protract the proceedings and lacks merits. The way in which case was conducted so far indicates that even if the order is reviewed the management is not going to make any improvement in prosecuting the case. Hence the petition is dismissed as meritless”.
WP(C).No.6578 of 2010
WP(C).No.6578 of 2010
Advocate for the opposite party, the workman.
review petition is not challenged till now. The above writ petition has been pending here for the last five years. It is only on the callous indifference of the officers of the Bank that such a situation has transpired. This Court is of the opinion that, in the context of the management having submitted that there is no evidence to be adduced, the Tribunal could not have but set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with full
backwages. It is also pertinent that the Bank has not chosen to challenge the order which was passed in its review application.
Taking all the above circumstances into consideration,
this Court is of the opinion that no interference can be caused to the award of the Tribunal. Writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge
vku/
[ true copy ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with the Tribunal's award setting aside a vitiated domestic enquiry where the management failed to adduce evidence.
Whether the management was represented lawfully in the Tribunal proceedings earlier.
The Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Govindapuram, Calicut
K.V. Gokuldas
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
